If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Dirty even lower, attack politics.Bridges is dragging decency down and his moral compass if he ever had one has gone trumpian. Breaking his own reccoed amendment standing, lol. The fact he has got his whole party to defy the laws and unleash their attack ads shows this person is digging a deeper hole in a cesspit of his own filth in his quest for power. The last thing this country needs.

"When MPs reviewed these Standing Orders in 2017, they agreed that this particular attempted control on public commentary risked “making Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism” and so removed it. But beyond this, the reviewing MPs “could not reach agreement about a relaxation of the rules for official television coverage” and so no further changes were made.And who was opposed to further relaxation of these rules? Well, according to Labour’s Chris Hipkins in the House yesterday – with National’s Gerry Brownlee agreeing – it was then governing National Party. And who was a member of the Committee that reviewed the Standing Orders? A young tyro by the name of Simon Bridges. And who then recommended that the House adopt the amended Standing Orders, which continued to prohibit the use of TV footage for political advertising? Have a watch here and see (hint: it was Simon Bridges)."When MPs reviewed these Standing Orders in 2017, they agreed that this particular attempted control on public commentary risked “making Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism” and so removed it. But beyond this, the reviewing MPs “could not reach agreement about a relaxation of the rules for official television coverage” and so no further changes were made.And who was opposed to further relaxation of these rules? Well, according to Labour’s Chris Hipkins in the House yesterday – with National’s Gerry Brownlee agreeing – it was then governing National Party. And who was a member of the Committee that reviewed the Standing Orders? A young tyro by the name of Simon Bridges. "And who then recommended that the House adopt the amended Standing Orders, which continued to prohibit the use of TV footage for political advertising? Have a watch here and see (hint: it was Simon Bridges)."Why political attack ads will have to stop using footage from parliament

Dirty even lower, attack politics.Bridges is dragging decency down and his moral compass if he ever had one has gone trumpian. Breaking his own reccoed amendment standing, lol. The fact he has got his whole party to defy the laws and unleash their attack ads shows this person is digging a deeper hole in a cesspit of his own filth in his quest for power. The last thing this country needs.

"When MPs reviewed these Standing Orders in 2017, they agreed that this particular attempted control on public commentary risked “making Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism” and so removed it. But beyond this, the reviewing MPs “could not reach agreement about a relaxation of the rules for official television coverage” and so no further changes were made.And who was opposed to further relaxation of these rules? Well, according to Labour’s Chris Hipkins in the House yesterday – with National’s Gerry Brownlee agreeing – it was then governing National Party. And who was a member of the Committee that reviewed the Standing Orders? A young tyro by the name of Simon Bridges. And who then recommended that the House adopt the amended Standing Orders, which continued to prohibit the use of TV footage for political advertising? Have a watch here and see (hint: it was Simon Bridges)."When MPs reviewed these Standing Orders in 2017, they agreed that this particular attempted control on public commentary risked “making Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism” and so removed it. But beyond this, the reviewing MPs “could not reach agreement about a relaxation of the rules for official television coverage” and so no further changes were made.And who was opposed to further relaxation of these rules? Well, according to Labour’s Chris Hipkins in the House yesterday – with National’s Gerry Brownlee agreeing – it was then governing National Party. And who was a member of the Committee that reviewed the Standing Orders? A young tyro by the name of Simon Bridges. "And who then recommended that the House adopt the amended Standing Orders, which continued to prohibit the use of TV footage for political advertising? Have a watch here and see (hint: it was Simon Bridges)."Why political attack ads will have to stop using footage from parliament

So Bridges is completely untrustworthy and has scored an own goal here. He really is copying trump and that aussie PM. He is bringing his own party down into disrepute which is a shame, there are/were some good people there.

Simon has a mantra “the poor hard working New Zealand taxpayer” and his party
continues to push for more tax cuts.
The latest debacle as a result of his predecessors desire to reduce costs and tax is the report on the NZTA. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/116...-its-customers
Now the poor hard working taxpayer is to be threatened with a fine of $3000 if his children leave high school without future further training.

You've put in the time and effort - stood in a safe Labour electorate, been rewarded with a marginal electorate, made a decent showing - maybe even won it, been rewarded with a safe National seat, you make it onto the party list, you get a shadow portfolio, you ask the patsy questions, you defend the indefensible, you swallow all the dead rats that come your way, you're an undersecretary, then a secretary, then a junior minister, then a senior minister, and then . . . .

The party helicopters in Don Brash. . . . or John Key. . . or Mister Luxon. . .

As a Senior Figure in the party, as a Senior Minister in the government - bang! wham! you've just hit the glass ceiling.

You've put in the time and effort - stood in a safe Labour electorate, been rewarded with a marginal electorate, made a decent showing - maybe even won it, been rewarded with a safe National seat, you make it onto the party list, you get a shadow portfolio, you ask the patsy questions, you defend the indefensible, you swallow all the dead rats that come your way, you're an undersecretary, then a secretary, then a junior minister, then a senior minister, and then . . . .

The party helicopters in Don Brash. . . . or John Key. . . or Mister Luxon. . .

As a Senior Figure in the party, as a Senior Minister in the government - bang! wham! you've just hit the glass ceiling.

Your career path now ends at Deputy Prime Minister.

As they ask on TV - "How do you feel. . . "

If Luxon or anyone else proves popular it's hardly likely to affect morale; no more than Fred Bloggs if Fred stands and gets in. Should only those unlikely to be popular stand?

If Luxon or anyone else proves popular it's hardly likely to affect morale; no more than Fred Bloggs if Fred stands and gets in. Should only those unlikely to be popular stand?

No, not at all. It's virtually nothing to do with popularity.

But it's similar to the creeping demoralization that you see in the Public Service, where it's increasingly rare for a CE to be someone who has had a career with a Department, knows the operational side, understands policy and strategy, and how to implement them.

Instead, time at one of the "policy agencies" is becoming increasingly important. So senior management spends time having things explained to them. And the operational people spend ever-increasing amounts of time bringing management up to speed.

Who with ambition is going to put in the years of donkey work if they know that the top job is going to be forever out of reach?

But it's similar to the creeping demoralization that you see in the Public Service, where it's increasingly rare for a CE to be someone who has had a career with a Department, knows the operational side, understands policy and strategy, and how to implement them.

Instead, time at one of the "policy agencies" is becoming increasingly important. So senior management spends time having things explained to them. And the operational people spend ever-increasing amounts of time bringing management up to speed.

Who with ambition is going to put in the years of donkey work if they know that the top job is going to be forever out of reach?

Welcome to celebrity politics. . .

I thought all he had done so far is stick his hand up in an electorate. Surely any Nat. party member is allowed to do that, or is that not how it works?